1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million (one million until February 2013), and the lease term of KRW 500,000,000 (one million until January 17, 2012) from January 17, 2012 to February 28, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From September 1, 2012, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the said lease agreement. On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate indicating the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delayed rent.

(Service on February 27, 2014)

Even after September 1, 2012, the Defendant still occupies and uses the instant building while running its business (the Defendant stated that the closure of business on June 29, 2014, No. 5-7, No. 5-8 of the evidence No. 5-2, however, no assertion or proof exists). As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendant’s overdue rent from September 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013 (3 million won in total from September 1, 2012 to February 20, 2013, and from March 1, 2013 to December 16, 2014) is deducted from the Defendant’s overdue rent from September 1, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on February 27, 2014 on the ground of the Defendant’s delay, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

(B) The Plaintiff, by itself, had the obligation to pay the Defendant the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s default from the instant lease deposit, sought simultaneous performance of the duty of delivery. However, the Plaintiff did not remain the lease deposit as seen earlier)

The defendant's assertion 1 as to the defendant's argument is presented to the court.